Friday, February 26, 2010

This giant crime--a market designed by Goldman Sachs often hiding in island bank accounts--could have been stopped but for the corrupted 2007 Supreme Court 5-4 decision on the status of CO2. It is obvious now the judges could not possibly have had correct information. Weak, greedy politicians are complicit. The decision is now a sham and has allowed the greatest crime against humanity, so-called man made catastrophic global climate change- to continue.

The City of London, nexus of carbon thugs, gets special mention. This article seems to accept the idea of so-called man-made global warming but makes the case that the whole climate industry is a criminal operation.

Asia Times: "At CopenhagenThe discussions at the climate change conference in Copenhagen last year focused on "developed" and "developing" nations, and the new market for carbon offsets. Industrialized governments created these carbon permits

and allocated them to the largest multinationals with the largest carbon footprints.

The latter architects of the system, Goldman Sachs, with foreign subsidiaries criss-crossing the globe

from the Bermuda to the Cayman Islands, Hong Kong to Jersey, Ireland, the British Virgin Islands and Africa's own world-famed hub, Mauritius,

not only designed the huge carbon market, but also hold

a 10% share in Al Gore's Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) - the pilot carbon trading program in the United States.

Gore's CCX, whose board includes VIPs such as the former UN secretary general Kofi Annan and the former World Bank president James Wolfensohn, had advocated for the privatization of the atmosphere as far back as the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.

One well-publicized engine of the new carbon trade is the Clean Development Mechanism, which enables polluters to circumvent caps by financing projects in the developing world that emit little or no carbon. Yet, according to studies by Stanford University's Energy and Sustainable Development Program,

"between a third and two-thirds" of CDM projects do not represent real reductions.

Meanwhile, Group of 20 (G-20) governments subsidized fossil fuels to the tune of $300 billion in 2009.

So, as the G-20 spends its time creating a carbon trade market that does little to reduce carbon emissions, multinationals continue to expand their extractive enterprises,

dictators continue to siphon off capital, financial firms cash in on pollution credits, and this illicit capital continues

to flow into offshore locations that are themselves threatened by the rising waters associated with global warming. ...

The future of (the Seychelles)...isn't as immediately dire as the Maldives, its fellow member of the Alliance of Small Islands States (AOSIS), formed

in the lead-up to last December's Copenhagen climate summit.

The lowest country on the planet, the Maldives has a maximum ground level of 2.28 meters, or just below the height of Chinese basketball player Yao Ming. But the Seychelles would be one of the next islands in line if the water level doesn't stop rising.

The sad irony is that, despite producing little in the way of carbon emissions,

both island nations may have contributed to their own demise.

The Seychelles and the Maldives share the same secret underpinning to their respective economies.

More than 50% of AOSIS members are secrecy jurisdictions, misleadingly labeled as offshore centers and tax havens.

These economies - characterized by opaque legal and financial services ensuring little or no disclosure, high levels of client confidentiality and

few requirements for substantial economic activity -

are recipients of illicit capital. These laundered profits have been siphoned from resource-rich but artificially impoverished developing nations.

Such island hubs act as key facilitators of the network by providing offshore financial services, remotely controlled from onshore head offices such as

the City of London.

Mobile units of lawyers, bankers and accountants serve as the intermediaries between white-gloved multinationals and black-gloved political elites.

The money that could otherwise go toward reducing the carbon footprint of multinationals and funding sustainable development in developing countries is

instead sunk in island accounts. And that money may well end up sinking the islands themselves.

Islands of money

At present, almost US$13 trillion in secrecy-protected wealth is held offshore and out of reach. If moderately taxed, these funds would yield over $250 billion. Such funds could more than finance the Millennium Development Goals, which are estimated by the World Bank at $40 billion to $60 billion annually through 2015.

They could also go toward the adaption and mitigation funds needed by developing and emerging nations, which the UN puts at $4 billion to $86 billion annually.

The recovery of this illicit capital will be difficult. The islands that host these accounts are dependent on this revenue. The economy of the Seychelles is dependent on the financial sector for 11% of its GDP. This puts the Seychelles not far behind the notorious Cayman Islands, the world's fifth-largest financial center, where financial services account for 14% of GDP. Switzerland, which launders one-third of all illicit capital, depends on financial services for 15% of its GDP.

Most island economies are politically and economically dependent on major economies like the United Kingdom and the United States.

They compete to be the offshore repository of choice by offering opaque financial and legal services and low or zero tax rates.

Through these secrecy services, developed governments are also on the final receiving end of illicit flight from regions like sub-Saharan Africa, which is a net creditor to developed nations.

The source of funds Nigeria is Africa's largest oil producer and the fifth-largest exporter to the United States. Since the 1960s, the country's political and military elite has stolen more than $400 billion in oil revenues from Nigeria's citizenry and deposited it in secrecy jurisdictions such as Switzerland. Meanwhile, despite the extravagant promises of multinationals like Chevron operating in the country, Nigeria's people have become progressively poorer.

The extractive industries have generated considerable opposition, human rights violations, and violence. The mass ecological degradation is pegged at $5 billion per annum.

Africa does not share much responsibility for global warming. The continent contributes only 3% of global greenhouse emissions. But the extractive industries that operate in Africa are major emitters. Shell, for instance, emits more greenhouse gasses than many countries: its carbon emissions in 2005 exceeded the emissions of 150 countries.

Although Africa occupies a small carbon footprint, the continent's autocratic regimes in Angola, Nigeria, the Congo, and Gabon are located at the base of the commodity chain and depend primarily on the capital-intensive extractive industries that supply the world's largest carbon-intensive engines with a significant share of fuel.

But neither the corrupt regimes nor the corporations that financed and facilitated global warming made it to the Copenhagen agenda. "

Alwaleed, who also heads Saudi investment firm Kingdom Holding Co., is a longtime investor in News Corp., with a stake of about 7 percent of the company, according to a recent U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

Now they're saying well, aren't green programs a good idea anyway even if you "don't believe" in global warming. Wrong argument. We of course want to treat our air, sea, and land wisely. That is something completely different from saying the United States caused hurricanes and must pay reparations--billions every year--to demented hedge fund billionaires and corrupt dictators.

How is this not a crime? How can this be done without congressional approval?

Why should Americans bother to work and sacrifice if the result of their work is to be shipped to murderers, rapists, and demented dictators?

Obama scrapped the NASA space program to divert its US taxpayer dollars to Islamic countries and (non-existent) man made global warming.We are now slaves to countries who force marriage on 8 year old girls and believe in 'honor killing.' Why isn't this on the front page of the NY Times and calling for Obama to step down?

"We really like Indonesia,"explained Bolden, "because the State Department, the Department of Education [and] other agencies in the U.S. are reaching out to Indonesia as the largest Muslim nation in the world. We would love to establish partners there."

The global warming junk science hoax is one of the big winners of government largess, despite the daily revelations that reinforce that it is all a hoax, the largest fraud in human history.

Despite the increasing evidence and public awareness of this hoax, Barack Obama is working full speed ahead in snowbound Washington, D.C. with his plan to redistribute the West's wealth to third-world nations in an attempt to halt this chimerical "global warming."

Billions for graft and corruption and fraud, but nothing for the future discovery and the progress of mankind.

Meanwhile, the advancement of true science, as represented by NASA's space program, is being shuttered -- and now NASA itself

is being redirected to serve Muslim countries.

The observer cannot help survey current events with a mix of shock and awe and terror. The government continues to place

The left in America has stalled growth, innovation, productivity, and the protection of individual rights at the expense of whatever political fraud they were selling. Big government has been encroaching on our lives for decades now, and with Obama as president, the bottom is falling out. We must act to halt the rapid deterioration, because of government taxation and regulation, of the conditions in which free men produce, invent, and prosper.

Is America irretrievably broken? Perhaps. Perhaps the whole damn thing has to come crashing down about our heads for there to begin a return of the real America."

"Barack Obama suffered a setback to his green energy agendatoday when three (actually 5) major corporations – including BP America – dropped out of a coalition of business groups and environmental organisations that had been pressing Congress to pass climate change legislation.

The defections by ConocoPhillips, America's third largest oil company, Caterpillar, which makes heavy equipment, and BP rob the

US Climate Action Partnership of three powerful voices for lobbying Congress to pass climate change law.

Officials from BP and ConocoPhillips said that the proposals before Congress for curbing greenhouse gas emissions did not do enough to recognise the importance of natural gas, and were too favourable to the coal industry."...by Suzanne Goldenberg via Tom Nelson

Don't worry, climate profiteers with trillions at stake are now set on breaking US citizens with a carbon tax. ed. story of the addition of Xerox and Marsh to dropouts via Tom Nelson

The total unfunded pension and medical benefit costs are $90 billion. We would have to pay $7 billion per year to make them current. We don’t have that money—you know it and I know it. What has been done to our citizens by offering a pension system we cannot afford and

As others have said, it is difficult to describe how deeply embedded the democrat machine is in the state of New Jersey. I am from NJ and most of my family still lives there. Only a few months ago, I said I didn't think a republican candidate could win in the state unless armed police were at every polling station. I was wrong and still consider it a miracle. Of course, it was a great help thatthe republican party itselfdoes not exist in the state of New Jersey. Thank heaven. ed.

Above sign from NJ Garden State Parkway Exit 98,leading to my favorite beaches on the Jersey Shore.Thanks again to NJ voters.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Don't mess with the loophole that put George Soros in the White House....

"Nothing—not even George W. Bush—has sent liberaldom screaming into the streets more than the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Court's ruling that corporations have a free-speech right to express opinions about politicians running for office really let the furies out.

President Obama's in-their-face criticism of the Supreme Court over Citizens United at his State of the Union speech got pundits on every blogger barstool chattering about the propriety of this public smackdown.

That's nothing compared to how the Supremes smack each other inside their public decisions.

Justice John Paul Stevens dismissed the majority's opinion, written by Anthony Kennedy, as lacking "a scintilla of evidence" for its argument and making "only a perfunctory attempt" to root its reasons in the First Amendment views of the Constitution's Framers....

Justice Stevens's view of corporations, reveals a lot about why Mr. Obama and liberalism's left wing went nuts. It isn't just corporate political advertising that's anathema.

Corporations themselves are anathema.

In his State of the Union swipe, Mr. Obama said the Citizens United decision would "open the floodgates for special interests." The "special interests," of course, is Democode for corporate interests. This week we learned Mr. Obama will try to convey his pro-business sentiments Feb. 24 to the Business Roundtable. Don't buy it.

Justice Stevens offered the historic and psychological basis for this foundational antipathy.

"Thomas Jefferson," he notes, "famously fretted that corporations would subvert the Republic." A citation quoted by the justice notes that "the word 'soulless' constantly recurs in debates over corporations"; and "corporations, it was feared, could concentrate the worst urges of whole groups of men."

But here's the public-philosophy belief that flows from this view: "The Framers thus took it as a given," in Justice Stevens's opinion, "that corporations could

be comprehensively regulated (my emphasis) in the service of the public welfare."

In short, private corporations have not much, if anything, to do with the public good.

In his crack-back concurrence, Justice Scalia ridicules "the corporation-hating quotations the dissent has dredged up." He notes that most corporations back then had

and that modern corporations without these state privileges "would probably have been favored by most of our enterprising Founders—excluding, perhaps, Thomas Jefferson and others favoring perpetuation of an agrarian society."

He ends with a conservative belief: "To exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy."

America's Democrats and Republicans, crudely defined, are with this presidency and this Congress living today on

Evidently, the voters of Massachusetts have a problem with that and more.

In the past year, Mr. Obama and the Democratic Congress passed a $787 billion stimulus, seized banks and the auto industry, embarked on a $1 trillion reorganization of the private health-care system, and passed a fiscal 2010 budget that put spending as a percentage of GDP at 24.1%. These are very large claims for the public good.

This public-private tension is an ancient and never-ending debate in the U.S. But what we are seeing this year, in Massachusetts and elsewhere,

is American voters arriving at a tipping point over the scale and role of government. Most Americans still go to work each day inside a private economy organized around tens of thousands of corporations.

Their basic view of the world and that found inside Justice Stevens's dissent and this White House are out of sync."Daniel Henninger, Wall Street Journal, 2/11/10, "The Scalia vs Stevens Smackdown" via John Batchelor Show

"Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) President and CEO Billy Tauzin said late Thursday he was resigning effective June 30 after five years as head of one of the most powerful lobby groups in Washington.

The group, which represents Pfizer, Merck and other top drugmakers,

has been one of the biggest backers of Democrats' legislation to expand access to health insurance, among other reforms.

"The bottom line is: this is not good for the (healthcare) bill," said lobbying expert James Thurber, head of the Center for Congressional and Presidential studies at American University. "PhRMA played a key role and without Billy Tauzin, who is trusted by both parties, there ... it doesn't help the cause for getting the reform through."

PhRMA pledged to pay $80 billion over 10 years in price cuts and other concessions as part of a deal with the Obama administration and top Senate Democrats last June.

Despite the costs, the deal was seen as a small price for the $315 billion drug industry to pay in exchange for potentially 30 million more insured customers....

Still, his departure casts further doubt on the future of Democratic legislation currently stalled in Congress. Despite the industry's backing, Democrats are struggling to find a path forward to pass a final measure after losing their supermajority in the Senate last month.

The resignation of big pharma's top lobbyist further clouds President Barack Obama's ability to make good on his promise to overhaul the nation's $2.5 trillion healthcare system as Democrats struggle to pass their health reform plan.

A call for additional comment from PhRMA was not immediately returned.

Kindler, a Democrat, is set to take over the lobby group next month from current PhRMA chairman and AstraZeneca CEO David Brennan. Both Kindler and Brennan praised Tauzin's work....

Still, Republican strategist Scott Reed cited flaws with Tauzin's approach, saying he "got seduced by Obama world, and it turned out to be a strategic blunder for his industry."...

PhRMA is still likely to have a strong role in shaping health reform negotiations going forward despite the leadership switch given its substantial funding. Industry analysts have said the current Democratic bills could be either neutral or positive for the sector....

Even according to a number of IPCC scientists, if the entire planet adopted the Kyoto Protocol and additionally ceased all productive activity worldwide tomorrow, the global temperature might be reduced slightly less than 1 degree — in 20 to 50 years,

Representing more than a dozen members of Congress and more than two dozen associations and companies that are dramatically affected by the new EPA endangerment finding, our firm filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia this week.

In December, we asked the EPA to reconsider its ill-considered finding. In the coming weeks, we are likely to engage in a number of other challenges to attempt to halt this train wreck.

Every American would be affected at great cost. Farmers and agriculture, manufacturers, trucking-transportation companies, railroads, energy producers and suppliers, and energy-intensive industries like concrete and glass

will face staggering mandates that may dwarf the potential costs of pending health care reform.

The trade-off promised by global warming acolytes is an avalanche of so-called "green jobs."

A pledge made by President Jimmy Carter more than 30 years ago, millions of

green jobs have never materialized,

despite billion-dollar public expenditures ostensibly designed to encourage them.

Moreover, according to recent econometric studies of congressional cap-and-trade proposals, which are less stringent than the forthcoming EPA mandates,

• Goessling is executive director and chief legal counsel for the Southeastern Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm and policy center now litigating against the Environmental Protection Agency.

In fact, the largest grant made under the program so far, a $178 million payment on Dec. 29, went to Babcock & Brown, a bankrupt Australian company that built a Texas wind farm using turbines made by a Japanese company.

In fact, a new deal announced the same day as this report would give Chinese officials $450 million in stimulus grants to export Chinese turbines to a wind farm in Texas. "Dozens of jobs" would be created in the U.S. For China? "Thousands."

This report undermines the very justification for spending billions of taxpayer dollars on what was billed as a surefire way to kickstart the "Green Revolution."So much for that."

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

"In 2003, Hillary Clinton screeched "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are..."...from You Tube

And while we're at it, load up 1000 buses from United for Peace and Justice and International Answer to riot against Obama every weekend like they did during the Bush administration. via RedState.com